Author: hjamesweb

Young Progressively minded student. I play for an inclusive rugby team in Swansea where I attend University. I am currently studying Medieval studies at BA level, hopefully will be moving onto MA. Supporter of Labour, Plaid, SNP and Green.

It seems funny that a sketch from Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’ has anything to do with Brexit, but the whole argument for Britain leaving the EU seemed like the elaborate, ungrateful scene in the amphitheatre. The questions John Cleese, and the People’s Front of Judea, asked in this scene are still prominent now, so by answering them we can see why Britain’s position should be within the European Union.

But I am a medieval studies undergrad, so the question moves from Romans, to Europe and then into the context I am more familiar with- the Normans. The Norman Conquest of England reshaped the relationship between England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France. It brought the countries into direct action against each other through dynastic and border struggles in areas which England had little interest before, like the Vexin and Maine. But most importantly trade flourished under the Normans and subsequent Angevin kings.

Suddenly the western coast of France and Antwerp were open for trade. These zones complimented each other and increased the amount of special, high value goods which were traded. Merchants from England were able to thrive off of the sea-borne commerce, concluding in more crown revenues from taxes. What is more, these merchants gave more to institutions like the church, which in turn funded the beautiful, extravagant monasteries which are a symbol of our medieval past. Coastal towns like Dunwich, Dover and Bristol were enlarged through the amount of trade and commerce which directly had to go through their streets, this meant better houses to accommodate all of the tradesmen and workers. The Anglo-Saxon burghs and wics ballooned due to the increase in trade. The immediate increase in trade which was as a result of the Norman Conquest therefore benefitted both the new settlers and the native population.

This system is now paralleled in the modern trading zone which was created by the EU. The free trade bloc that the Customs Union gives Britain is vital for trade. Yet, not only was this never really discussed during the televised debates, people still underestimate the impact of not having this free trade with Europe. Just like in 1150, European trade is the largest trading bloc which we work with. The freedom of movement allows businessmen from France, Germany and the Netherlands start-up businesses in Britain which would create, not destroy, jobs. These Europeans are not aiming to destroy or commercialise Britain into a little Europe, they are here to work, which means we get the benefits of specialised goods. So the first answer you can give to the overall question is, the Normans started a system of trade with the rest of Europe, which is not only set the precedent for modern trade but is still vital for Britain.

This trade is not limited to purely commercial products. The free movement in the medieval era enabled the trade of thought to flourish also. The Normans brought new building techniques, a new style of warfare and a more institutionalised church system which integrated English monasteries to their mother houses in France and Italy. During the Twelfth Century Europe underwent a short renaissance, which improved learning and art, all of which would not have travelled to England if it was not for the freedom of movement the French monks used. (There is a huge debate about how dependant England was on France in this era with Richard Southern deeming that England was totally dependent on France, which seems most likely in terms of trade.)

England did give back to the Normans. John Gillingham who wrote on the Angevin Empire states that the ‘Long-term consequences of the Norman Conquest had been the introduction of an English administrative practice on the Duchy.’ This unique administrative system was set-up by Alfred the Great, therefore quintessentially English. Twinned with common trading benefits, it is clear that England and the French states mutually benefitted from free movement and a common identity.

How is this relevant now? Well Europeans are better manufacturers and producers of high-valued goods than we are. Britain to some extent does depend on specialised mechanics from Germany and France. There are other products and expert knowledge that we rely on from Europe, but there is some things we do give back. Our intelligence service is one of the best in the world, or so they say. It has been keeping Europe in check and safe since we entered forty years ago. What is more our banks are used by an array of different European tycoons, businessmen and others. The benefits are symbiotic.

The free movement of people and ideas within the medieval era then resembles what the EU has offered and enabled Britain to do for decades. Britain also benefits from greater, free trade with other European countries, just like separate British states did within the early Middles Ages. There is one main difference that Brexiteers forget, we are not ruled by the EU. They have not taken away any of sovereignty and aim not to break down our nation, but aim to better it. England was taken over by the Normans who were then succeeded by the Angevins, therefore had little choice but to reap the benefits of Europe. The European Union therefore is not a conspiracy to take over Britain but to better the lives of the nations which are included within it. And to answer what the Normans ever did for us, the simple answer is that they included the British Isles in the powerful and beneficial network of trade and free movement that an isolated island nation might not have ever joined.

It’s the Second Test in the Lions 2013 tour in Australia. You’ve been rated one of the best new players in the world. Why wouldn’t you? You scored two amazing tries in the previous test despite the loss. It’s a tight match and your opposite winger has taken the ball 10 meters in front of you. To stop the seventeen stone, six-foot-four beast George North a strong tackle is essential. Instead he decides, despite being the one with the ball, North decides to put you on his shoulder and dumper truck you into the ground. A bit embarrassing isn’t it?

(Tackled? Folau in Gold)

What could be worse? Maybe spreading hate in a community which prides itself on inclusivity?

Israel Folau decided that by stating that gay men would be going to ‘hell unless they repent their sins and turn to God,’ he wanted to take the spread hate option.

If you’re a rugby fan or have read the latest on the story in Attitude magazine then you probably think that I’m going a pretty comprehensive band wagon, but inclusivity in rugby is something close to my heart. I have recently had the privilege to being made coach of the local IGR inclusive rugby team, a club that as a few know helped me dramatically with my confidence. I owe Hywel 2.0, out-of-the-closet edition’s confidence to the club.

Folau’s comments on homosexuality, and the wider LGBT community, have the ability to have severe ‘damaging effects’ as Convicts coach Dan Rose stated this week. The most obvious one is on the inclusivity the sport currently operates. The International Gay Rugby organisation, (IGR), is a charitable rugby organisation who incorporates inclusive rugby teams throughout the world. It organises tournaments, like the Bingham and Union Cups, and has over 70 member clubs with many more associated clubs on the side. The IGR’s success at promoting inclusivity for all abilities and backgrounds, twinned with their fight against general homophobia is impressive, but it is still relatively unknown to the majority of clubs. Everyone’s heard of King’s Cross Steelers or Manchester Village Spartans but the message can be lost.

A comment like Folau’s could be taken by those players struggling with their sexuality/gender as a message from the whole rugby community to stay quiet, do not accept yourself as the community does not. With Basteraud calling Sebastian Negri a ‘faggot’ too this year it is concerning that players in top flight rugby still hold such views. Basteraud of course denies he is homophobic, stating that he ‘reacted badly to his [Negri’s] provocation,’ but as Pewdiepie’s casual use of the N word shows, by using a word with such a history of hurt behind it casually, it is offensive. In the worst case these incidences, like openly gay referee Nigel Owens points out, it could tip some players ‘over the edge.’

The severity of such comments is quite serious. What is more unacceptable is the weak sanctions the IRB and international organisations placed on the players. Basteraud only had a three week suspension, missing only one Six Nations match against Ireland. Tom Morgan was given a six match ban for a racist comment in a rugby league match in 2012. Just a three week ban for Basteraud is simply unacceptable. Any hate in sport much be confronted with serious punishments in order to eradicate it.

Of course, censorship is not a way forward in any incident but there needs to be a way of showing that this is unacceptable.

Until the Rugby Australia board or International Rugby Board officially condemn such views the best thing to do is celebrate the inclusivity which rugby operates. (I had to go back to 2012 to find the latest headline concerning a racist incident in rugby). Half of the rugby team I play for are heterosexual, what is more the associate local club we’re attached to is the perfect example of a club being inclusive outside the IGR community. There are several gay players who regularly play for the local side as I do myself.

Those who want to join the rugby community should do so without discrimination. Hence why these clubs, organisations and their message are so important. The wider rugby fans have showed their condemnation of Folau’s views. We need to make a point of all hate in sport, whether it is an opinion or not as they have lasting consequences. Folau is a part of a very small minority who do not believe in equality. The backlash that this view has had has been nothing but embarrassing for him. I hope it has not caused harm. My ticket to hell was bought a long time ago, so I’ll see you there Folau.

It is important, like in the instance of the bogeyman Trump, that we should not talk about Rees-Mogg so much otherwise he too might become too powerful. However after reading about medieval law it is interesting to see the parallels between conservative thinking, society and the medieval consensus concerning women in law.

Rees-Mogg has been an ardent pro-life supporter in terms of abortion. This stems from his religious beliefs, but I would argue that even with the knowledge of the scriptures, one should still have humility concerning inalienable rights. In terms of law concerning rape in the Middle Ages, it is clear that the damages towards a woman’s patron were far more important for the upholding of the king’s peace than physical or psychological damages to the victim. J.B. Post would even go as far to say that the ‘appeal of rape lapsed into insignificance.’

Why did society deem damages to the girl’s husband, father or ward as superior? Like the excuse used by men during the infamous European Witch craze, and all of time, women were inferior to men due to their susceptibility as demonstrated by Eve. This one singular origin story has affected the whole of society for the whole of Christian history. Ultimately women would live their lives under the constant protection and supervision by their patrons, from father to husband, even limiting their ability to obtain a writ. Women were property. If a woman was abducted or raped then her patron was shamed as being idled or useless. Therefore in a state where male landowners controlled amendments and statutes, the damages ‘inflicted’ on them were always going to be dealt with more seriousness.

The link to conservative ideologies concerning abortion? The majority, like Mogg, believe that even in cases of rape, abortion should not be allowed. That the victim would have to endure remembering what happened to her every time she looked down for the next nine months, then would have to give birth to the monster’s innocent child.

As a result it seems that a rape victim’s rights in any circumstance has changed very little from the 1285 Statute of Westminster (II). That there are still men and deluded women out there who degrade a victim when she becomes pregnant due to rape. It is disgusting. How could anyone still see this man as anything other than a polite monster?

Of course, this family has the values were predominate in the 1970s just like the TV show. The only thing is that they’re completely made up by white, heterosexual men without disability who thinks that by having an equalities conference, the labour party somehow is discriminating against them…

I understand that it must be hard now that women are taking a stand against the dominance of your office lad-culture, where you have little degrading chats about women’s peculiars. Or when you’re all together with your students mates talking about some “absolute fitties,” before going out on a ‘hard one’ yet only coming back with “a decent one, to be fair;” whilst not understanding that you’re being a twat. It must be hard to know that women could do your job just as good if not better than yourself. I feel sympathy for you if your masculinity could be effected so much due to women now having a voice. Don’t get me wrong women still have a fight because you’re being quite stubborn, which is funny because that’s actually one trait you’ve placed on women in the past when they wouldn’t listen to you!

The hypocrisy that you spew when you attack the equalities conference is ridiculous. Theresa May herself supports the Women2Win campaign where they aim to get women into top class, conservative positions. OR do you forget this because May is a woman, and you’d much rather have Mogg?

There’s a long way to go. Women are still under represented in politics and in major corporations. It took until 1997 for female MPs to make up a third of the lower house. Furthermore, 17.3% of FTSE 100 directorships are women. There is a gross disproportion of women in the highest paid positions in both the public and private sphere.

Likewise, I understand that it is so hard to see men holding hands down the street as that is a direct assault on your own fragile masculinity. How dare two people who you don’t know and will never see again tease you? They’re ok with their sexuality, which is not ok because you are not stable enough with your own. You have to show your mates that ‘not a fag,’ so you begin to shout abuse at these two men before turning back to reminiscing about that ‘sweet poontang.’

I can’t even write this without cringing; it’s all true…

Experience of hate crimes based upon sexuality has risen by 78% in the last two years. With 29% of LGBT people avoiding certain streets in order to feel safe. This is not a way to live, yet there are still a large amount of people who comment on the way we live our lives. Comments on twitter or in the streets force some to state that their partner is their sibling in order not to provoke a homophobic attack when we’re buying bottles of wine at the till.

In terms of skin-colour, I do not have the right to state what it must have been like, and is still like for people from different ethnicities, but I can at least recognise the discrimination they have had to bare. If you chose to still be xenophobic after all these years then there is no hope for you. There is no threat from someone with different skin colour to you. It is inconceivablefor anyone to hate or fear anyone due to their skin colour and truly mind boggling how this is still makes up the largest amount of hate crime. Of course all hate crime is disgusting but in 2017 there were nearly 63,000 recordings of hate crime based on race. Compared to 10,000 on sexuality and 6,000 on disability. It is clear that BME people not only still see the most amount of hate but also the worst types.

LGBT people in the UK, like many women, the disabled and BME people too, are still living in fear of their own safety due to the actions and rhetoric spewed out by the real minority. It is ridiculous how much fear you have over the growing success of the ‘minorities’ which you keep ridiculing. Don’t you understand that if someone is better than you at your job you’re shit and move aside? There is nothing that should stand in the way of success, which includes your fear of the other. Your religious, racial, sexual and gender based xenophobia will be fought against by the many.

Nowif you’re reading this letter as a white, hetero man please do not just presume that this is you, or that I hate your creed. Don’t get me wrong you only show that side of yourself when you’re not in a group of lads. There’s the problem, lad culture and social conservatism. Majority of my closest friends and family are of course still made up of you. You’re brilliant, funny and are kind. You’re some of the best allies for people from minorities, like Fred Pethick-Lawrence. The majority of you have been so supportive like my dad and all my mates from rugby and home. Show compassion. We all have it in us; probably even Mogg and Bradley.

Just when you thought the Conservative Party could not get any further away from public consensus they rate Rees-Mogg as the best successor to May.

Calling him a Victorian man is nowhere like the truth. This man stays true to his morals, which must be commended, but Jesus Christ it is incredible to see anyone still in government which disagrees on anything liberal unless it is economics. Most MPs would not oppose all welfare reforms along LGBT rights and women’s rights, but Rees-Mogg has managed to consistently vote against the welfare state and rights of minorities. Let me introduce some stats:

Voted to remove the duty on the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to work to support the development of a society where people’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination and there is respect for human rights.

Voted 4 times against Marriage Equality

Voted to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 (Obviously as the EU made us finally enshrine human rights, but how dare they oppose our own sovereignty!!)

Voted against making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of caste

In terms of the welfare state, he also voted to reduce housing benefit, opposed raising welfare benefits and higher benefits for those who are disabled but still trying to find a job.[1]

Now on to the fun part. Rees-Mogg is a Catholic and therefore argues that it would be against what he has taken from the Bible as morally acceptable in terms of abortions. Of course the fundamental argument here is that he is a man, and no matter what straight men think, it is not down to you to deny a woman a right to her own body, whether that child is yours or not, the woman has to carry it for nine fucking months. But on top of that, he has recently been found out to have invested £5m in an Indonesian company which produces abortion bills.[2] Therefore he has a very vested interest in opposing abortion, as well as a ‘moral’ one too! How lucky.

Inspiration for this post has obviously come from the disgusting scenes at the UWE talk the MP was hosting. It is clear, even if the right are blind to it, that the #whiteshirtman threw a punch at one of the female protestors. The contradiction by the Tories calling for more freedom of speech by taking away safe spaces at university which attempting to push through an act which would see these protesters arrested in the future is just absurd. These safe spaces are unequivocally integral to combat anxiety and to help comfort. It is very easy to argue against them if you have never been decimated against or sexually harassed before. Ultimately they make no difference to university life for the majority, but do a substantial job for those in need of them. Jo really is a Johnson.

Now of course I know that some people, well the majority apparently, will not agree with socialist values, he is as entitled to his conservatism as I am to socialism. But come on. This man has voted against laws trying to stop discrimination. Even if equal marriage goes against what you have interpreted from your religion, how can anyone in the 21st Century deny people equality? How can you deny the people who need extra help in order to live and money which is vital to them in order to succeed? And how can anyone deny people of protection by eradicating their rights as a human?

It is clear to see how different Rees-Mogg’s political and moral code is so different to millennials. It is not just a shame that he still has substantial support in the party but also with the public, it is also a massive threat. This man could do more harm to the majority of us than any European bureaucrat, immigrant or Trump! Watch this character with an unequivocal eye.

How can we fight austerity if we do not even recognise the sex of a person?

It is common that the media report certain rises in trends when there is celebrity that raises concerns about it. Usually they are about healthier diets. But within the last year there have been two significant developments in the war for gender equality. Weinstein, Dr Nassar and a number of probable rapists, like literally 100% certain but just in case this comes back to sting me because after all we have to understand that every allegation must be seen with respect, have been found out due to the courageous women and men who decided that the monster’s should pay. The infamous #MeToo has been used to show solidarity of victims and shed light on the obvious misogyny which still dominates society. With the ‘President’s Club’ scandal that has popped up within the last week its clear to see that over the course of the near future more and more victims are going to show the middle finger to harassers.

I could obviously go on in so much more detail, which this case deserves, but there are many allies and victims who are shedding light on this issue, and very few discussing the issue of the transphobia report by Stonewall.

The report is saddening. The battles for LGB and women’s rights are far from over, but it seems like the fight for the remaining T has barely begun. The only Act of Parliament which discusses rights of transgender people is the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Should we throw a party that we passed this act over a decade ago? Not really, more of raise a glass in homage. This is due to the fact that the legislation enable only a few transgender people to be recognised. This was in itself based upon the grounds that being transgender meant that you had a… wait for it… mental illness. So this act quite obviously needs reform, even if its intentions were nice.

Transphobia can be found everywhere, even if you address the person by the wrong gender pronoun. Queue the lib-tards snowflake siren going off again; but what needs to be understood is the fact that after all of the struggles this transgender person has gone through, a little comment such as that could send them into a pit of anxiety and isolation from who they really are again. The effect of this can be seen in an interview, within the Stonewall report, with Willow who stated that such things were causing her “acute anxiety in my daily life.” It is vitally important therefore that these issues are spoken about in the media, so to raise awareness. 34% of transgender people have been discriminated against in cafes and bars, but most worryingly 44% avoid certain streets due to past experiences of harassment. Nearly half of transgender people have to reroute their walk into town from fear of being harassed. How can any sane person not get angry at this? It is just a shame that not every feminist, nor everyone in the LGB community, refrains from transphobia.

There’s been a lot of people ousting transphobes on twitter over the last couple of days, which in itself is beautiful. One of the most surprising findings when researching is the transphobia apparent in the Labour party. Now this is not because I am a clear advocate for the party, it is because they were the ones who implemented the legislation back in 2004, as well as civil partnerships. The party has a long and positive relationship with minorities, yet people like Jennifer James let down the side. The party member started a campaign to block all transgender women from all female shortlists. James argues that her suspension was due to the fact that they couldn’t suspend her for her ‘socialism.’ The fact that she does not realise that the party is a socialist party is worrying in itself. She later goes on to state how there is a ‘class war’ and that that is why she was gotten rid of, which actually makes sense because there is a class war, what she will probably never realise is that she is not a victim of that war but actually a transphobe. It’s like the picture Katy Hopkins tweeted with the target on her head claiming ‘this is what it feels like to be a conservative women.’ Stop suggesting like you are the victim when you are quite clearly the protagonist here!

The irony and contradiction in James’ message is terrifying. I cannot believe that after the revelations since the Saville case on misogyny and sexual harassment that any woman is unwilling to stand shoulder to shoulder to other women; especially after they stood up with you. In addition, that people from the LGB community not recognising that these people have gone through exactly the same struggles as you have, in some cases even more as they had to tell everyone their gender and sometimes their sexuality. These people have fallen victim to the same antagonists that we all have. Like my call for the progressive parties to stand together against austerity, women and the LGBT community need to stand together against harassment and a violation of rights.

Despite the few, short years of questionable pseudo-socialism of the Blair-Brown era, Britain for the last half a century has been dominated by neo-liberal, or rather classical, economics. Thatcher and her children would deem themselves neo-liberals suggesting that they have modernised the classical ideology for the better, yet the truth in fact is that government is returning to the ‘Night-watchmen’ state of the late 19th Century. As stated before, in previous pieces, that the current government are creating an argument that will leave the public to call out for the NHS to be re-privatised, Thatcher’s wildest, wettest dream. What is more, current funding of the wider welfare state is not keeping up with demand. The conservatives have stated how in fact, they have not cut all spending in the public sector, yet the fact is that they are still not under-delivering in comparison of what they should.

Owen Jones, in his definitive book The Establishment, states how the ‘neo-liberal’ movement were only ever allowed to move in for the kill when the cracks of the post-war consensus were begging to show. Instead of attempting to reform the problem, a tactic used by Major after Thatcher’s administration, the right-wing think tanks and media moved in for the wholesale slaughter of the only representation many workers had; the Unions, as well as the vital public sector services. Now is the time for the pro-welfare state activists, supporter and politicians to act. When the post-war consensus broke down, Thatcherism took over. Now the conservatives have taken working class families and welfare state to the brink of collapse. Now is time that those who oppose austerity should take over. This was highlighted in the news this month when tweets from 2012, posted by Ben Brady showed that he suggested mass vasectomy for working class people. There are three main areas where the effects of austerity are clear; homelessness, unemployment and mental health.

In terms of homelessness I have again already posted a blog article on here attacking the disgusting comments made by Windsor town council leader. Yet again it is a sign that the government is failing their people. The homeless charity Shelter conducted their annual research into homelessness in 2017, stating that around 307,000 people are homeless. One in every two-hundred. This is a rise of 13,000 in just a year alone. 4,700 people are reported as rough sleepers, with the highest ratio being in Birmingham, where 1:88 are homeless. Of course these statistics included people living in temporary accommodation, as well as homeless shelters and rough-sleeping. However there is no doubt that an increase in homelessness is the clearest sign of a failing economy. Thatcher argued that the rate of unemployment and the failing public sector of the 1970s was an indication of a need for change, now her own liberal economic strategies are proving even more damaging to services. Liberal economics promotes laissez-faire, free market capitalism, allowing the market to regulate itself and leaving the government out of any and every business. Now, for market growth, there does need to be freedom for fluctuations, which ultimately are good. However supporters of classical liberal economics demand total freedom, no control, allowing for the rich to dominate the market and stop growth of smaller business, placing a glass roof over anyone whom has not been born into wealth. Although, as Jones describes, liberalism could be seen as elite socialism, creating jobs and money for those already born into the establishment, it must be reiterated that ‘liberal economics’ is very different than liberal social politics. A sort of reverse Robin Hood, as I like to think about it, taking money from the poor, including money from services vital for their very existence, and giving it to the rich, who once were held more accountable for their gross bonuses and paycheques.

The Conservatives would try to tell you that unemployment is at its lowest since the 1970s, which in itself is ironic as it was the last decade of true socialism. “Fake news!” The official percentage is 4.5% of the population being unemployed, yet the real number is 8.83 million of us, around 21.5% according to The Business Insider. People who are taking time off work, are stay at home parents or have given up looking for work do not count as unemployed, yet technically are. Although this has not really changed in recent years, it is the myth-busting the website has produced which is why the true rate of unemployment is so significant.

The next topic, as I’m sure many of you who are reading this, is personal to me as I have been one of the millennials who have had their own battle with anxiety and depression. Of course, any commentator might suggest that the number rate of people diagnosed with these illnesses is due to the fact that society has become a culture of ‘snowflakes.’ Not only is ‘snowflake’ a very offensive word with historically racist epitomes, but as a society we have just become more aware of the effects of words and policies. The real reason for this ‘increase’ of diagnosis, is the fact that people have the confidence to express their emotions. A quarter of adults will experience depression or anxiety directly. The free-market only enables and enhances the development of depression. This is through the pressure of ‘making it’ that the laissez-faire style economics promotes. There is a direct link between poverty, or being in the lower, socio-economic groups and depression. Not being able to afford clothes, food, bills and toys for your children at Christmas let alone random times throughout the year. The pressure of how your child dresses whilst at school, or the knee-sliding school discos. Constantly comparing yourselves to other parents. Even if you don’t have any children, the constant comparisons to those in the media or friends who have ‘made it,’ due to their flashy new car, could lead to these illnesses. No wonder suicide is the most common cause of death for 18-34 year olds. The lack of money caused by those who have started with none, and the inability for social mobility created by the Conservatives has a direct impact on depression and anxiety.

Ben Brady, like the majority of conservative voters, think tanks and politicians have kept up the rhetoric that poor people are there because they do not work hard enough, and rely on other people’s money. Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that one day, you run out of other people’s money.” Disgusting and untrue, the country is currently still listening to this dogma. The stagnant economy of the 1970s brought in the Tories, now there is a consensus produced by the economic crash, established in 2010 with the coalition government. This has to be beaten back. Austerity is not the answer now. There is a working and middle-class crisis. Even if many are blind to it as they are not currently struggling, soon the 99% will be struggling. The hardest working people, with the greatest anxieties and the greatest fight in front of them need the total equality of opportunity, rather than the stricter inability for social mobility. The problems economic-liberalism produces has more than just an effect on the poor becoming poorer; it’s causing long-term, deep depression which concludes in someone, a human, taking their own life.